oppose this. thank you. >> i live there with my wife and children. we have been there 14 years. we discovered the area while walking our dog in the neighborhood. godard will not go too deep in the discussion of the street, but we do dead end, and i find more people walking the streets and horace -- than cars.

air really creating -- they are really creating a vibrant green space. gooit encourages the building. the zoning half of lockdown is hr2. this is significantly. this also focuses on clarendon st.. it is a freeway the connect ses.

clarendon is very different, and to suggest this proposed development is going to look like something on clarendon does not reflect the impact it will hivesave, so this is an oversig, and it needs to be addressed, and are without some board to reconsider an -- i asked the board to reconsider.

by fire appreciate the opportunity to discuss our concerns curio -- our concerns. i agree about the documents. you might say it is not material but we have received about, but i would argue it is. this is actually 4,358 feet. that is a 4% increase of what would be the largest home on the street. let me speak about why it should be accepted. one argument we use, i went through the property information nomap.

there are 45 homes. what you will see is 34 out of 45 homes have attached walls. gooi am not going to try to understand, but that is three different from belgrade's. we have 34 homes, and 100% are fully detached. when we say comparing them is fundamentally flawed, it is because clarendon is different. if you look of the block mounma they refer to belgrade a clarendon might as -- as

clarendon heights. if this had been compared to something else there would be different results, because this property does look like any of the other properties. it is a convenient metric to describe the density of the home on the street. i am using information from the san francisco database. there is a question that they are inaccurate. i cannot be responsible for city

accuracies. [list of names] >> i live up 114 del grades, and i was trying to show a picture. this is what we are talking about, and i am here to oppose this because it fails to understand the unique nature of belgrade's avenue, and because it does not understand the '89 and '90 three project would begin to destroy the beauty of the street. your deatit is not clarendon av.

our would like to show you a picture of some houses that are approximately the size of the house those being proposed for 89 answerd 93. this is not muggers -- this is not belgrade avenue, and to compare them is they're wrong. -- is very wrong. i have lived on the grave of a new 40 years. i love the street. -- i have lived on belgrade's avenue and 40 years. i love the street because it is everybody's street. people come from all over the neighborhood to exercise. taurus, walking down the street. we have met with every did tourists -- tourists come

walking down the street. to say it should be compared with clarendon st. is wrong. the proposed houses would begin to destroy the character. they would take away a big chunk of green space but sits in the center of the street. let me show you were one of the houses would be going toup. this is a big green area that would simply be gone, changing the nature of the street. from here you can see up the hillside. you can see additional trees.

there is a creek, and it would be replaced by a very large and expensive mansions and would also kick of a working-class people who live at 89 belgrade've. i am opposed to this project. >> thank you. if i have called your name. >> good evening, commissioners. i hope you get the idea. a live 114aat 114 belgrave ave,

and i hope you support our appeal. upoi believe we could impress un you how you meet this area is. i would like to show you some pictures. you can see how very necessary is -- how varied this area is. this is not an ordinary street. this is a picture of the two proposed project. the project sponsor put these up for us, and we appreciate it. it shows the massing that will ocurcur and how a significant

amount of green space will be taken away. here is another picture showing the frontage of the building. it does not show the reader elevation, -- rear elevation, but it does indicate how much will be lost forever. i would like to talk about how belgrave has been unusual. in many ways it has been frozen in time. because of the unique cacography, it has retained its green, specious mcharacter. the event today was the first time in 90 years of the developer has bought to build on the street in a manner of the fine of -- the finance --

defiant of zoning laws. although there was not an identical situation to what we are facing today, the reasons given by the commission are those we share for objections to the current project. i was going to read more excerpts from 1975 by the commission, but i will keep it shorter perioer. >> you have 25 seconds. >> that is not much. i will summarize by saying i hope you agree the findings do not acknowledge the uniqueness of belgrave ave.

aesthetic impact is a consideration, and we feel this is a negative impact. thank you very much. >> good evening. the issue with the negative declaration is it contains numerous factual errors. there are only two properties exclusively referenced as comparable properties. clarendon avenue has nothing to do with our street. they're completely different neighborhoods with completely different characters. the second property is only property cited in the report.

on numerous occasions, it is almost 10 times as much. this was proposed as a single- family residence that would entail the demolition and -- the project does not exist. you heard from the neighbor. goothis statement is reference o 10 times in the report and forms the basis of numerous conclusions, and this commission should not adopt it. it should be redone to confirm there is not a single project that is comparable to the project. thank you. >> if you want to line up when i

have called your name, you will be queued up to speak. >> i lived at 65 belgrade, the property mentioned earlier. i am here to support our neighbors and also to say the planning commission was right. i am pleased with what happened. i tried to build something compatible with other properties, and i thought it worked out well. >> [list of names]

>> clarendon is mentioned two times. i would like to say it takes five minutes by car to get to the property discussed. it is not just an adjoining neighborhoods. gooit is another area entirely. i should also point out not only the two points are not relevant, but the house i live in has been proposed to be built into something of an equivalent side.

the other thing is how can the staff say one thing, and why shouldn't the commission go with the staff? this is where the staff may have had too narrow or to a broader view, and when the commission hears from us what is true, they can revisit. in the response to our concerns, they say the appellant is correct in stating it is in a typical street in that it is a short, somewhat isolated street which terminates on either side with open space, so they agree with that statement. their reason for overriding it is an amazing statement. the project is located on the edge of a relatively dense urban neighborhood a.

if they look there, there is no way into the dense urban neighborhood. goothey're looking at maps thate not accurate, so they say if the edge of the evidence urban neighborhood, which contributes to the overall character of the project, they are absolutely right. this would contribute to a dense urban neighborhood. anywhere near there is nothing like that. thank you very much. >> [list of names] >> it is far too late for a close, and all want to do is simply echo. also want to do is ago but

nothing is accurate and something should begun -- all i want to do is echo nothing is accurate and something should be done. good >> i would like to echo what has been said. you can see that even though belgradve and clarendon are adjacent on the map, there is no vehicular access. clarendon could be miles away for all that really matters. thanks. >> thank you, commissioners. my husband and i feel fortunate to have lived on belgrave ave.

for many years. there have been many changes and proposed changes during that time. the worst of the changes were never realized thanks to the wisdom of the planning commission. we hope the wisdom in jurors, -- wisdom endures, and we ask you to accept our environmental upheavaappeal. >> are there additional speakers? >> i live oat 77 belgrave. it is a particularly lovely, short street, and it creates a pathway on one side, and we

neighbors' selfish to want to preserve it for ourselves, but it is used by many people walking their dockgs and enjoyig themselves, so i would urge you -- >> any additional public comment? >> i am going to really keep this short. my name is joanne, and i live at 20 belgrave, and i have lived there for 28 years, and it is the most charming, a beautiful street you have ever seen, and it would be among -- an atrocity if this gets billed. -- built.

>> any additional public comment? seeing none, the public hearing is closed. commissioner miguel: i have walked at st. three times. i think i understand it, but the project is not in front of us. mr. sanchez is going to have to deal with that. what is in front of us is the row appeals. i am going to quote from some of the department material, because this is a ceqa issue. "pursuant to an initial study, and evaluates and discloses the effects of the proposed project, does not assess the merits of the project."

section c summarizes the location surrounding zoning, and it does not assess the environmental effects of any future rezoning of the neighborhood, nor does it consider the projects code compliant or its assessment of environmental impact. it may be considered when consideration of whether to approve the project. all of the testimony i heard has to do with approval of the proposed project. that is not in front of us. what is in front of us is whether to go along with the emnd, or to require a full

environmental report. i have read through the materials. i do not see where this item, a full report, is necessary, and required, or should be done during your -- should be done, and i think the argument should be considered in the zoning and by us if the project ever comes to us. the recommendation is the commission adopt the motion to uphold. no substantial evidence supporting that a significant

environmental effects may occur. the project has been presented with preparation of an environmental impact report. that is my opinion as well, and i will move to adopt the department's motion and of poles -- and uphold. >> second. i have some comments. we have testimony to the fact it is a unique street in san francisco, and a case can be made at a later time whether or not this project is advisable, whether or not a lot switch should be made, whether the character of the homes would be for that street. those are not environmental issues.

you have had a hierarchy of environmental analysis, beginning with environmental review, which we often see with single homes being insulted region -- being built, and we move to the negative declaration. i am not sure why we went up to this, but there was mention of a stream or possible underground stream present underneath the side, and maybe that is the reason it is at this level of an environmental review. staff may have comments on that, but i do not think it rises to the level of full environmental impact report. i would certainly be interested

in hearing this case as a separate case but i do not think more environmental process is necessary. commissioner sugaya: i am going to talk for six minutes so we can hit 12 hours in this room. decision making does not give so great when we have been here for so long, but i will give it a try. i have a question for staff. there have been numerous comments from neighborhood of silence -- neighborhood of heleappellants with respect to e of the other streets, and i think generally the reason has

to do with ceqa's -- i do not know what you call it, but ceqa looking at what might be generally called the greater neighborhood, which would extend beyond the immediate street, but given that, it is there a size rule you use to define how large this is? is there any consideration given to yourelationship? belgrave has almost nothing to do with clarendon. they are separated. they are different kinds of environments, but i could see

would include that in the greater neighborhood, but can you elaborate on the definition of the neighborhood within an environmental reveriew? >> i heard a couple questions, and one thing you were alluding to was the basis for been mentioned in the environmental %u department documents, secret documents, and one common sense told we use -- when common thing we use is a block of votes, and although clarendon is a different street by nature, i would point